The article Blindboy quoted from the New York Times.
I thought that was gospel. Since you can use that shit to push your agenda on man made climate change.
Please read what your dopey mate is pushing as fact.
Please be a man and apologize Floyd.

Tonybarber

With respect, how can you say we have little data? I haven't been following this thread for a while so not sure what you guys are discussing exactly (and I don't have time to really follow it again now) but the science community has tons of data on climate history. Externally validated climate and atmospheric records for hundreds of thousands of years at a minimum. Some going back many millions of years I believe. All validated by consistent relationships around the world.

What do you know that says we have little data and that it isn't accurate?

Quick edited to clarify. This isn't a snarky enquiry. I'm genuinely curious as to what you think and what you base that conclusion on.

Benski...good to see you back. I believe you have a fair grasp of this complex issue. The recent postings were the connection between droughts and the Syrian conflict. As we know Obama and Kerry are having a tough time in the US re climate action, so it seems Kerry stated that the droughts in Syria were 'significant' in the cause of the war. He was careful to suggest (correctly I suggest) that there were several other key issues on this. But some how now 'extreme' weather events are caused by climate change. My understanding is that IPCC are still out on that and need more research. Eg, it is known that El Niño is not caused by climate change but there is discussions with respect to frequency of extreme el Ninos. With respect to 'accurate' weather data, you need to review how, when and where weather data has been collected over the last 100 years, say. There are many readings (historical) which could easily be challenged if used for research. The Siberian continent area comprising of Russia, is just one.
The key point is cherry picking individual weather events, as some of our politicians have done, can be debunked. A bit of sensationalist rhetoric, maybe.
At this stage, I am interested to see the Paris outcome - interesting.

Classic Tones at work here; with respect to benski and others not sure why anyone gives this guy the time of day ... to accuse others of cherry picking while he has a 2+ year history of doing just that is well, laughable.

Tones always has comments in support of coal & nuclear and/or observations, always with a tint of negativity, on anything to do with renewables & climate science.

And AndyM, Tones doesn't answer questions he just poses them .... or, lets see .......

So Tones, what do you actually stand for & believe in?

Wowee, all the Swellnet Brains Trust in full effect. Especially a rare appearance from the creator of this thread. The mysterious (and fucken stoopid) Nick Nick Nick.

Funny how it was Blowie's gay fantasy projections that lured him out of his dungeon. Bring out the Gimp indeed!

Old Blowie the Blowfly I kinda get. You know, wafts in through an open door, annoys everyone for a bit buzzing about and battering himself against the closed windows, then you find him dead in the bathtub. Poor simple bugger.

But this Nick Cubed is a different kettle of lime-scale. I mean, I'm relatively new here, but it seems the Swellnet cast of characters do get around on different threads spreading their dis-ease. But Nick etc seems only to relieve himself via this thread. Please correct me if I'm wrong, Nick Nick + 1.

I dunno if I'd check out all your other work though. Fuck, I wouldn't waste my time and sanity picking through the garbage for Sheeeeepdog previously, and you, Nicky Nick Nick, make him look like Tesla crossed with Tolstoy.

(I think that's what they call a backhanded compliment, Doggo)

As for Tony Barber, come on down! You loveable nut you. I really mean it. Come on down. The meds have got you too high up in the stratosphere of your own fundament. Mind the gap.

All hail the swell nutters!

By the way, Benski, you deserve a Nobel Prize. Not for science but for seriously dealing with this all in a serious manner. The Noble prize for patience. And seriousity.

Ahh the "talking turkey roasts the swell nutters" continues..... Dean Martin meets Paul Hogan..... Keep working on the humour, Slap.... You might get a laugh one day.....

Hey floyd.... About your famers/no rain comments the other day..... I can't ever recall meeting a happy farmer lol...... No rain - ahhh meee crops are failin'..... Too much rain - ahh that rain was tooooo early, gonna have to put prices up..... Just the right rain - ahh bloody locusts, ruined most of the crop, gonna have to put prices up"...... lol....... But they're always driving round the paddocks in new cars...... Work that out old chum.....

Jeez, Sheeeeeeeepdog, I thought you were lying 'doggo' (get it, get it).

You see yourself as one of the swell nutters? Well, then. Job done. I guess.

Come on, old fella, perk up. I'm grabbing my keys. An old dog can learn new tricks.

Floyd:

"Tones doesn't answer questions he just poses them .... or, lets see .......
So Tones, what do you actually stand for & believe in?"

You're spot on Floyd.
As for giving him the time of day, well, that's done. Are these guys trolls or what? To paraphrase McEnroe, they can't be serious.

"Old Blowie the Blowfly I kinda get. You know, wafts in through an open door, annoys everyone for a bit buzzing about and battering himself against the closed windows, then you find him dead in the bathtub. Poor simple bugger."

Dunno about you Sheepdog but I laughed out loud at this.

Turkey head go back to smoking/ drinking or just pulling yourself about good you think your shrivelled brain is.
You sound like a hard nut. I am shaking in my boots.
Please show other threads I am in. I am always available to discuss.

talkingturkey wrote:

Wowee, all the Swellnet Brains Trust in full effect. Especially a rare appearance from the creator of this thread. The mysterious (and fucken stoopid) Nick Nick Nick.

Funny how it was Blowie's gay fantasy projections that lured him out of his dungeon. Bring out the Gimp indeed!

Old Blowie the Blowfly I kinda get. You know, wafts in through an open door, annoys everyone for a bit buzzing about and battering himself against the closed windows, then you find him dead in the bathtub. Poor simple bugger.

But this Nick Cubed is a different kettle of lime-scale. I mean, I'm relatively new here, but it seems the Swellnet cast of characters do get around on different threads spreading their dis-ease. But Nick etc seems only to relieve himself via this thread. Please correct me if I'm wrong, Nick Nick + 1.

I dunno if I'd check out all your other work though. Fuck, I wouldn't waste my time and sanity picking through the garbage for Sheeeeepdog previously, and you, Nicky Nick Nick, make him look like Tesla crossed with Tolstoy.

(I think that's what they call a backhanded compliment, Doggo)

As for Tony Barber, come on down! You loveable nut you. I really mean it. Come on down. The meds have got you too high up in the stratosphere of your own fundament. Mind the gap.

All hail the swell nutters!

By the way, Benski, you deserve a Nobel Prize. Not for science but for seriously dealing with this all in a serious manner. The Noble prize for patience. And seriousity.

Ah, the TossingTurkey has re-surfaced. Didn't realise Australia had an extradition treaty with The Philippines. Back to the nursing home then, eh, Mick?

Well said, lizardgator...... it's pretty obvious, isn't it..... Got that desert drawl about it......

AndyM..... Yeah it got a smirk out of me..... But it took umpteen posts and about 25000 words of dribble........
Reading the turks longwinded drool is a bit like hitting your head against a brick wall for 10 years - It feels soooo fuckn good when you stop......

nick3 wrote:

Turkey head go back to smoking/ drinking or just pulling yourself about good you think your shrivelled brain is.

You sound like a hard nut. I am shaking in my boots.

Please show other threads I am in. I am always available to discuss.

some of us remember when you used to f***ing shell out on all the people on welfare ..................... You, boy, got form all over this site or that single celled brain of your playing tricks of you again?

Sheepdog wrote:

Ahh the "talking turkey roasts the swell nutters" continues..... Dean Martin meets Paul Hogan..... Keep working on the humour, Slap.... You might get a laugh one day.....

Hey floyd.... About your famers/no rain comments the other day..... I can't ever recall meeting a happy farmer lol...... No rain - ahhh meee crops are failin'..... Too much rain - ahh that rain was tooooo early, gonna have to put prices up..... Just the right rain - ahh bloody locusts, ruined most of the crop, gonna have to put prices up"...... lol....... But they're always driving round the paddocks in new cars...... Work that out old chum.....

hey sheepy, i have lots of respect for farmers, the real deal country folk, who work their backsides off ...........

Boo ,
Don't worry , sheepo & lizard .
This Turkey is afraid of chickens .
I must say I haven't posted in this thread in a while for obvious reasons . But it really seems likes its gone to new levels of the " twilight zone " .

Floyd you bet i have problem with people on welfare that shouldn't be. I have always said i don't have a problem with people who really need it. Is there something wrong with that?
I do have a problem supporting you.
By the way you still didn't come up with a answer as to why we aren't 6 meters under water.
According to The New York Times we should be. So explain( with your own scientific explanation ) why if the last time CO2 levels were this high the sea level was 6 meters higher.
The problem Floyd you aren't smart enough to actually come up with your own reasoning just post links or cut and paste .
Don't duck and weave and throw mud like you always do.

nick3 said " ..... So explain( with your own scientific explanation ) why if the last time CO2 levels were this high the sea level was 6 meters higher.
The problem Floyd you aren't smart enough to actually come up with your own reasoning just post links or cut and paste .... "

The thing is nick3 I don't cherry pick my science. In every aspect of our lives we rely (trust) science but for reasons that are beyond me some of us (like you) think they know better than 97% of the world's climate scientists. There are many theories why people do this but it is fact beyond any debate that large vested interest groups (coal/oil industries) fund the opposing debate in favour of the status quo ..... there is a buck in it so lets make it and let the pollution problem be solved in the future ........

The other thing nick3 is this beautiful blue planet is our home and intuitively I know it makes very good sense to look after our home and to keep it clean and not to trash the place.

So nick3, I trust the science, I don't need to check it for myself or seek out lunatic opposite views from some "public affairs institute" funded by the oil or coal industry and intuitively I know we should actively look after the planet ... good enough for me.

Now that's as polite as I'm going to get with you and on the welfare recipients matter don't try to rewrite history, your language back then was appalling.

Gday, southwald. Long time no see.. Mate, a glorified chicken may gobble, but they're always stuffed in the long run... Doesn't worry me one bit lol.... The only thing that worries me, like for 5 minutes then I move on, is the amount of people here that hold grudges over opinions... It's almost fuckn biblical.... And they let a grudge from one topic metastasize and spread into other topics.... Fuckn grow up, c*nts....

Floyd... Mate, I have respect for farmers.... Doesn't stop them having a good whinge.... I also respect nightshift janitors scrubbing skid marks in public toilets and picking up used needles... I respect nurses, and cops having to knock on parents doors to deliver the worse news possible... My point is you'll rarely meet a farmer saying everything is hunky dory.... It's part of the job... Part of the spiel... Part of the Australian way... No country bloke likes a bragger.... Best we all meet at the pub and have a good whinge, even if things are ok....
And Floyd, both sides cherry pick.... I say that as one carbon based life form to another lol

Please show the post Floyd ? Who is cherry picking?
You guys are the one's sending links to these articles.

Heh, cherries are in season. Cherry pick to your hearts content. But don't swallow the pips.

And speaking of "climate change", I've put an ancient pagan curse on SEQ and N NSW.... For 10 days and 10 nights, the surf will be like shite... Not a wave higher than waist will be ridden, just watch and see if ya think I'm fuckn kiiddn'..... :p Mwahahahahahahaaaaaaaaaah!!!!! (jokes, people..... jokes ok....)

Nick;

"The problem Floyd you aren't smart enough to actually come up with your own reasoning just post links or cut and paste ."

So you want Floyd to pick stuff out of the air without referring to the overwhelming scientific evidence out there?
You're joking...

@sheepy, agree farmers know how to have a bitch ... good season/good farming ... bad season/its the governments fault hahaha but they still are the salt of the earth sort of people.

@nick3, nah its not worth replying to you.

@tones, cherry picking humour from the head cherry picker ... very good.

@andym, you gotta laugh at the tripe served up here most days.

Sheepy, it'd only be cherry picking if "our side" was ignoring data which might contradict our position. That's the definition of cherry picking.
Can you please show credible scientific evidence which contradicts all the evidence confirming AGW or related sea level rise?
I'm not talking Tony Abbott or Andrew Bolt or "Lord" Monckton or The Australian newspaper.

And Nick did you even have a look at the article?

https://www.sciencemag.org/content/349/6244/aaa4019

Don't be scared off by the language Nick, your computer can access a dictionary and thesaurus.

Floyd -
"@andym, you gotta laugh at the tripe served up here most days."

Not angry mate, just disappointed...!

nick3 wrote:

Turkey head go back to smoking/ drinking or just pulling yourself about good you think your shrivelled brain is.

A classic example of projection. Who's been "smoking/drinking or just pulling yourself about good"? Poor old Nick the Gimp back in his dungeon, off his head, alone with his shrivelledness.

But wait! How's all the others that have now come crawling out after him? Here's some projection. Maybe you're not the Gimp, Nick Nick. Maybe you're some kind of Josef Fritzel. And now all the rest of the dungeon dwellers are out in the light, huddled together in victim support, licking each other's erm, wounds.

And maybe, just maybe, this thread ain't the biggest load of bad craziness from your end? Nah, a thread titled CLIMATE CHANGE WANKERS?! With a link from that mob??

I'm sure everyone had a look at PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL. I did. How's the bloke running it, John O'Sullivan?

https://www.aaskolnick.com/global_deniers/website.htm

Apart from his own blatant lies about his life and career, what he's done and dusted etc, check this!

https://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2012/07/24/strangest-agw-denialist-st…

THE GUY'S A KIDDIE FIDDLER!

And check this out about him and his main scientific 'go to guy' Dr Tim Ball.

https://bigcitylib.blogspot.ca/2012/07/tim-balls-balls-burned.html

Nick Nick Nick, this farcical shit-show is the best you can come up with that represents you and your obviously deeply-held beliefs?

As you said from the get-go, "suck shit losers" indeed, hey buddy?

Amasing!!

Nick, don't change man - you're beautiful...

This thread started ugly and could only ever go one way. Go for a surf Turkey, it's your only salvation!

AndyM wrote:

Sheepy, it'd only be cherry picking if "our side" was ignoring data which might contradict our position. That's the definition of cherry picking.

Can you please show credible scientific evidence which contradicts all the evidence confirming AGW or related sea level rise?

I'm not talking Tony Abbott or Andrew Bolt or "Lord" Monckton or The Australian newspaper.

And Nick did you even have a look at the article?

https://www.sciencemag.org/content/349/6244/aaa4019

Don't be scared off by the language Nick, your computer can access a dictionary and thesaurus.

Gday, Andy... I did, mate... In BB's old thread.... But I really am quite over it.... And I'm over the fact that no one hold either side to account for outlandish statements... I am over the fact that Bolt and his chargers are on the take from big oil... I'm over the fact that Mining companies run rampant through pristine forests.... I'm over the fact the climate change advocates scatter whenever I point out Flannery is pro nuclear.... I'm over the fact that whenever I post the nuclear industries involvement in the "anti carbon movement, pro global warming advocates stick their heads in the sand.... I'm over the fact that people honestly take the huge sea rise data spat out by a computer seriously.... It's all bullshit... Vested interests on both sides..... Bottomline - no carbon dioxide - no plant life... No plant life - no oxygen...No oxygen - no andy, no sheepdog..... Let's look at a worse case scenario - Planet gets warmer - Areas like Greenland all of a sudden spring to life with vegetation.. Even some areas of Antarctica come to life.... Now no one gives a shit about the black rhino now being extinct... it's gone... Forever... The Tigers are nearly gone... The java tiger is gone.... The river dolphins of China - gone....... So if no one gives a fuck about those animals, big deal about the polar bears or penguins, right (and yes - sarcasm).....
So worse case scenario is we live in a warmer time, and people move to new lands..... That sure beats the hell out of what Tim Flannery wants - a nuclear solution..... Vested interests.... We can deal with living on a warmer planet, but thanks to science, we can't live on a nuked planet...
Just my thoughts, that's all, bro......
ps- Both sides spin shit, but there's some gems on both sides too.... So I don't look at an article from one side and simply write it off because 3 out of 5 articles are crap... Flannery has spun some complete bullshit, but he's also had a few good points.... It's the same with skeptics..... Monkton has waffled crap, but there is some worthy stuff in there...

Sheepdog wrote:

So worse case scenario is we live in a warmer time, and people move to new lands.....

Just a little simplistic there, no sheepdog? This 'people moving to new lands' caper, yeah well that's working out pretty well at the moment huh?

And yes we can live on a warmer planet, but not much warmer, sorry mate but the "do-nothing" option is not an option.

@Shatnerd (see what I did there), I will decide when I surf in this country and the circumstances in which I do it.

Plus it's shit. Fuck, if it was good, I'd be on here?!

Sweet Baby Jesus, Doggo, Monkton? Really? Fuck, at least Nick Nick's John O'Sullivan is a bonafide comedian/flim-flam man. Monkton looks like Marty Feldman, but he's not up to those standards. He's just a bog-standard 'bought and sold' weirdo.

And Flannery is in that ball-park of fools? Really?

https://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/books/atmosphere-of-hope-review-tim…

So, it's nuclear or nothing? That's the choices as you see them? Or just keep calm, carry on, and let it be, same as it's been since the industrial revolution, and some of us, animals included, can just go out 'boiling frog' style?

For the true believers - here is a cherry you can pick but don't swallow the pips:
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-12-08/economic-growth-possible-without-…
Heh, whats all the fuss about ?

https://www.smh.com.au/environment/un-climate-conference/paris-un-climat…

More "worthy stuff", no doubt about it!

Damned pesky world government!

Sheepy, everything else in your post aside, current levels of CO2 point to large sea level rises - how can you dispute this?
And if you think a "green" Greenland wouldn't be concurrent with massive changes of sea level you're way, way off track. You've just got to walk around the sand islands of Moreton and Stradbroke to see the old shorelines (i.e. the foot of the old dunes) and see where a sea level rise of around a metre would take us.
And as I've said before, disregarding the evidence on AGW because some spivs might try to use it as an excuse to peddle a nuclear future is a bullshit argument.
And if you want to see real mass extinctions, let's keep going down the path we're going.

Sheepdog wrote:

[3 out of 5 articles are crap... Flannery has spun some complete bullshit,... It's the same with skeptics..... Monkton has waffled crap, ..

Thats fucking gold Sheepio;)

Ahh turk... Only one other bloke I know that spells amazing with an S.... But anyhoo, here's the pro Global warming Fairfax, yes, not Rupee...;
https://www.smh.com.au/news/national/time-to-go-nuclear-flannery/2006/08…

Andy, Australia has had the largest rate of extinctions IN THE WORLD..... Nothing to do with "global warming".... But do you care?.... Has anyone cared? Has anyone given a rats tosser about the wildlife corridors being totally decimated on the sunny coast so MORE people can live by the sea, this sea that apparently is gonna rise up? Flannery still owns his NSW harbour side houses?
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-08-19/fact-check-does-australia-have-on…

Andy, I never disputed the sea is rising, veeeeery slowly...... I couldn't give a fuck if the sea rises... i sorta hope it does, and it drowns half the filth dirtying our planet.... How many rats do you want to put in the cage mate?........ Life will go on.... But , Andy, I've seen an interview with that Williams guy when he said 100 metres by 2100.. Now he denies it.. I've seen Gore say back in 2007ish that it'll rise 7 metres... Now I see the "experts" reckon it's gonna be 72cm by 2200.... Well...... Fuckn hell..... 100m by 2100 down to 7 m by 2100 down to .72 of a metre by 2200...... But that's only a "one in twenty chance that Antarctic collapse could contribute more than 30cm sea-level rise by the end of the century and more than 72cm by 2200. "
https://www.bristol.ac.uk/news/2015/november/sea-level-rise-from-anatarc…

But in the meantime, Andy, whilst we've been talking, another 30 football fields of pristine carbon storing, carbon using Amazon has been munched, all put back into the atmosphere... God knows how much Asian rainforest is gone in this time..... But hey, who cares...... It's all about "trading schemes" and "taxes".... It's a fucking joke...
To keep flies down in China, every person kills at least one fly a day. or so I was told when i was kid lol..... Imagine if every man woman and child planted a tree tomorrow.. or a bush.... Or a shrub.... 7 billion plants.... tomorrow...... Sucking in carbon.... Better than a wankstain "earth hour"..... Now scientists can modify canola to be pest resistant... Well why the fuck aren't we modifying all these crops, and rose bushes, and plantation pines to store more carbon? Dunno..... Fuck all money in it I suppose... More money in uranium, carbon credits, bullshit schemes....

I care Sheepy, I care...

AndyM...I am sure everyone cares but sheepd states it well. For the latest, look at https://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-12-08/economic-growth-possible-without-…
Re the article you referenced re the sea level in Pilocene period, there is more research needed and more data. This is stated in the article.

AndyM wrote:

I care Sheepy, I care...

Andy, I wasn't having a go at you, bro.... Far from it.... Just having a rant.... I know you care, otherwise you wouldn't be spending time writing your concerns..... It's all good, mate...

Tones, what's your point about the ABC article? No argument from me that we can have a growing economy with zero emissions.
Also, I'll take a respected scientific journal that has the academic honesty to point out it's own shortcomings rather than non-existent research supporting non-arguments.

Check this out, interesting reading.

https://www.griffith.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/485341/Cooper-a…

As Sheepy was saying, kinda makes you want to see sea levels rise just to wipe the slate clean!

AndyM…you may have not noticed the key element in the research from the Global Carbon Project. Firstly, I don't know how reputable it is, so that needs to be ratified really by IPCC. Otherwise, you could argue its 'cherry picking'. If this research is correct, then where did China gets its energy for the growth it had ? It is most likely nuclear, but we don't know. But this tends highlight that China and India need to address the energy sources. hence maybe much to do about nothing.

AndyM did you read the article that you tried to get me to read . If so in your own words can you explain it to me. There were words bigger then three letters so I struggled.

Sheepdog wrote:

Ahh turk... Only one other bloke I know that spells amazing with an S.... But anyhoo, here's the pro Global warming Fairfax, yes, not Rupee...;

https://www.smh.com.au/news/national/time-to-go-nuclear-flannery/2006/08…

Amasing research, Doggo. From 2006. At least mine was from 2015. Let me guess, you either a) didn't open my link, b) didn't read my link or c) read it Sheeeeeepdog-style ie in a blurred paranoid frenzy.

From this original linked review of his new book, Atmospshere of Hope:

" Flannery admits that, years ago, nuclear power was considered by many, himself included, as having a key part to play in the so-called clean-energy revolution.

Reviewing the state of the world's nuclear industry, he makes the noteworthy point that, by 2013, "global wind capacity had grown to 320 gigawatts – equivalent to the capacity of nuclear in 1990". His conclusion: "the chances of a nuclear revival seem slender indeed."

Buddy, I know you like to concentrate on the individual and personalities and such, but if you're gonna hate Flannery, you've got to at least get up to speed on his latest stuff. Nuclear is out, or at least 'lying doggo'. (hee hee). There's some weirder 'geo-engineering/third-way' sciencey stuff to hate on now.

Maybe this Green-Left Review will tickle your fancy? It ain't Murdoch or Fairfax. Ain't a fan-letter either.

https://climateandcapitalism.com/2015/10/24/atmosphere-of-hope-bets-on-g…

Or there's Cosmos Magazine.

https://cosmosmagazine.com/earth-sciences/review-atmosphere-hope

" I never disputed the sea is rising, veeeeery slowly...... I couldn't give a fuck if the sea rises... i sorta hope it does, and it drowns half the filth dirtying our planet.... How many rats do you want to put in the cage mate?"

Crikey, that sounds a bit like Peter Dutton, Doggo.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-09-11/dutton-overheard-joking-about-sea…

Yay! Got a laugh out of Tony though. Great minds.

"Amasing research, Doggo...from 2006. At least mine was from 2015. Let me guess, you either a) didn't open my link, b) didn't read my link or c) read it Sheeeeeepdog-style ie in a blurred paranoid frenzy"

Lift, i didn't open your link coz I'm not interested in your crap.... Now as far as 2006 goes, that's the fuckn point maaaaaaate........ Ever since Fukishima, Flannery and co' shut their wordholes.... But they are slowly coming out of their share holder meetings, pushing their nut cake cha ching agenda...

"Buddy, I know you like to concentrate on the individual and personalities and such, but if you're gonna hate Flannery, you've got to at least get up to speed on his latest stuff. Nuclear is out. There's some weirder 'geo-engineering/third-way' sciencey stuff to hate on now."

Wow, coming from the guy that just at the top of this page, on monday, "concentrated on the individual and personalities and such", sticking it in a personal way to 4 bloggers in one longwinded unprovoked post....

And as far as " Nuclear is out. There's some weirder 'geo-engineering/third-way' sciencey stuff to hate on now."............. Well you better have a word to the head honcho Finkel.. he hasn't got the message stick.... And have a quiet chat to Premier Jay.... Maybe you can still get to the commission and fill them in... Here - i posted these only a few pages back, but of course the "end is nigh coal is evil" brigade glossed over it, just like they did back in 2006... I'll repost again, just for your blogging enjoyment turklift...

Finkel and Mal - https://www.abc.net.au/insiders/content/2015/s4343038.htm

Greg Hunt - https://www.abc.net.au/insiders/content/2015/s4343056.htm

Quick, mate - jump in the car and let Jay know about that machine that goes ping!! - https://nuclearrc.sa.gov.au/#fndtn-external-commission-visits

nick3 wrote:

AndyM did you read the article that you tried to get me to read . If so in your own words can you explain it to me. There were words bigger then three letters so I struggled.

No worries Nick, I'll get straight onto it!

"Lift, i didn't open your link coz I'm not interested in your crap.... Now as far as 2006 goes, that's the fuckn point maaaaaaate........ Ever since Fukishima, Flannery and co' shut their wordholes.... But they are slowly coming out of their share holder meetings, pushing their nut cake cha ching agenda..."

Lift? Don't you mean Lurch? Amasing. So let me get this straightish, Doggo. The links are my crap? Or Flannery's book is crap? Or the reviews of the book are crap?

Here's an idea from the book from a review I posted.

"Flannery believes that some climate engineering techniques are more acceptable because they simply accelerate natural processes of atmospheric and hydrological carbon management.

"Using photosynthesis to grow vegetation, for example, that dines on CO2 and stores the waste carbon as plant matter, but this process is only 1% efficient. We can force nature to do better, Flannery says, by dramatically boosting the pace of the natural carbon cycle and storing the extracted carbon in biological (forest, seaweed, biochar) form or in synthetic products, or by sequestering it through deep or frigid (South Pole) burial.

“Third Way” techniques range from the unobjectionable – reforestation and wetlands reclamation — to the more problematic. The problematic techniques include ocean fertilization, chemically-enhanced weathering of rocks, production of carbon-negative cement and plastics, and carbon capture that is not designed simply to prolong the life of fossil fuels."

Not being a scientist, is that anything like this?

"Imagine if every man woman and child planted a tree tomorrow.. or a bush.... Or a shrub.... 7 billion plants.... tomorrow...... Sucking in carbon.... Better than a wankstain "earth hour"..... Now scientists can modify canola to be pest resistant... Well why the fuck aren't we modifying all these crops, and rose bushes, and plantation pines to store more carbon? Dunno..... Fuck all money in it I suppose... More money in uranium, carbon credits, bullshit schemes...."

Oh yeah, this particular review concluded:

"At best, this plan to skirt the major roadblock of the economic power and political influence of fossil fuel interests through science, green entrepreneurship and the market is doomed to be, at best, too gradual and ineffectual. At worst, it is counter-productive.

By not scaring the sacrosanct GDP horses, by not challenging the capitalist god of economic growth, Flannery obscures the link between global warming and the capitalist economic system that has given rise to it. This link, as Canadian author and climate activist Naomi Klein has argued, is grasped by smokestack-hugging political conservatives better than most, and which underlies their climate denialism and their fierce and extremely well-funded resistance.

Flannery’s “Third Way” is the grand, and risky, illusion of geo-engineering, albeit shorn of its dangerously wilder fantasies, that will keep capitalism humming all the way up to environmental Armageddon.

The “Third Way” is predicated on the inviolability of economic growth with its imperative of making more profits by selling more stuff to more people. Flannery’s future of low-carbon, “Third Way” cement, plastics and electric cars would colonize ever more of the biosphere in a victory for the capitalist growth principle over a livable planet."

That was from the Green-Left review.

So, Flannery, as a scientist, is part of this "nutcake cha ching share holder agenda thing" (nutcake? kettle meet pot), hey? Like Finkel? And they're in it for the $$$. Right...........so that's why they and their scientific cohorts have exaggerated, or even invented this climate science thing 'cos they're in the pay of big nuclear? Or big oil looking to shift over to big nuclear? And chuck in big gas and big mining too. But first the big oil/mining/gas big boys are backing the sceptic thing to see how that plays out? And keeping the pro climate scientist dudes on the payroll too like an each-way bet? Right.........

As for the pollies. Well, Mal and Hunt are the worst of the political species you'd ever hope to run over in your tractor. Old Jay is clutching at any old straws trying to keep Adelaide from becoming Flint, Michigan. Yes, they will say and do almost anything. That's why we have to keep vigilant, hey comrade?

But to suggest the science community is 'in on it'? Duped? Naive? Or just corpo, money hungry, lying scum?

And either way, it all means that the climate science is dubious, bogus, and/or 'crap'??????

Nick Nick Fritzl, feel free to jump in too, buddy. Enquiring minds need to know.

"Lift, i didn't open your link coz I'm not interested in your crap..."

Fuck me that's a little bit rude!
A- it's rude.
B- It's not Uppity, there is only one lift on here?

benski wrote:

Really sheepdog? The second paragraph means it's a separate issue? That's your line? Come on man. Stop wasting your time with pointless strawmen and have a proper discussion.

If your issues with climate science, your alleged agnosticism about climate change, is due to what you read in the media, then you've got a lot more thinking to do man. Relying on what some "leading person" said in an interview to make your assessment? I thought I showed you the problem of doing that with the Vic rainfall in October :-).

Seriously, you know how much crap is in the media (misreported or otherwise), why bother relying on that for something this complicated when the forecasts with associated probabilities and estimates of uncertainty are available to you directly (all based on a 30 year definition of climate)? Do some proper reading for yourself.

You reckon no one gives a hoot about carbon sinks and phytoplankton? The IPCC consider it explictly...

Here's their discussion from the 4th assessment report on the capacity of phytoplankton

https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch11s11-2-2.html

And here's their analysis of the scientific literature on carbon sinks from the third assessment reports

https://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg2/index.php?idp=274

And here's a presentation of the probable rates of sequestration from re-afforestation

https://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/sres/land_use/index.php?idp=151

If you think the science community isn't considering this stuff then you're not reading enough before jumping to your conclusions.

"So yeah...... Benksi, old dag..... Don't get your hands dirty..... But just be careful what you wish for... "

huh? Love to know what you think I'm wishing for but I just don't have a dog in the fight you're promoting there.

Sheepdog wrote:

Benski, I am having a proper discussion, but you are now calling me a "denier".. You are now insinuating that i am lying about my stance... As is old dag.... Now that seems typical from the hardcore warmists like you guys...

Old dag couldn't even understand that our earlier discussion re' current BOM stats was a totally different tanget and slightly off topic in regards to the thread.... It had/has nothing to do with the definitions of climate and weather..... I know, and you know where that particular side debate began.. It was in regards to emergency commissioner clutching at straws re local predicted weather events being used as a scare campaign, and in regards to a particular NOAA map we disagree on.... So old dag is arguing with himself, over nothing, because anyone with 1/2 a brain knows that weather and climate are intrinsically linked.... If old dag, or yourself say otherwise, you really should give it away.... And my egg analogy is so easy to follow, that if old dag doesn't get it, he's a bigger idiot than I thought..... If one egg is the "weather" for say one day, and you then get a whole bunch of "weathers" - eggs,,,,,,, and you then look at that bunch of weathers, and look for cracks in the shells and yolk size and weight etc etc you'll have a picture on the CLIMATE of the eggs....... It's that basic an analogy that even a 5th grader could get it..... But no, not old dag.......

Now as far as you getting your imported shipped, made in china knickers in a knot over "classic 30 years", I have given you the link to the oxford dictionary, the cambridge dictionary, the same site you use, and all say the same thing..... Your "30 year" period is purely one facet.... Because we can discuss the "climate" during the jurrassic period... We can discuss the different climates of Antarctica compared to Bali.... We can discuss the climate during the ice age... It has nothing to do with 30 fucking years mate.....

And you know it..... Just another red herring....That's why you are now going the man and not the ball.......

And of course you don't have a dog in the fight re nuclear...... I'd expect that..... Not one word from you, old dag....... But the nuclear future thanks to the "oooh that's got nothing to do with me crowd" continues........... We'll be coming with pitchforks for you guys in 10 years..... Washing your hands of a problem you are helping to create........ lol

"SA Government 'open' to nuclear waste dump proposal despite previous opposition: Weatherill"

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-11-13/sa-govt-consider-nuclear-waste-pr…

"Six sites shortlisted for Australia's first nuclear waste dump"

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-11-13/government-releases-shortlist-sit…

"SA Nuclear royal commission: Waste dump best economic option for state, Business SA says"

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-08-02/nuclear-waste-dump-best-economic-…

And when a ship bringing back this poison to Australia is hijacked by extremists, or when a dodgy dockworker with connections pockets a heap of crap for "dirty bombs" ( and it will happen), Flannery, Finkel, and all the other hardcore pro nuclear pro "end of the world from global warming" fucktards AND their braindead followers, AND the cretins who want to spend hours being elite on threads arguing crap over word definitions who wipe their hands over the imminent nuclear future will run and hide like rats down their fucking holes........

AndyM wrote:

"Washing your hands of a problem you are helping to create......"

Let me get this right - if you believe in AGW, you are pro-nuclear/creating a nuclear future therefore you are an idiot to believe in AGW.

Logic so twisted it's pretty much broken Sheepdog.

Mate I agree with you with regards to the fact that we should be very aware of this "trojan horse" however to me, AGW and a "nuclear future" are two separate issues that some are trying to pass off as one. Clearly there's a link but they are certainly not inseparable.

I still have some faith in the Australian public and the tiers of government in that the pro-nuclear crowd will not have a win.

Sheepie, I'm not sure why you wouldn't put your considerable energy into the anti-nuclear side of things as opposed to abusing those that believe in AGW.